Case study : assessment of innovation on a P3 project process perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the construction business, where new ideas, system technologies, new and or enhanced materials, innovative construction techniques and associated equipment and facilities management processes are being constantly developed to aid greater efficiency in terms of time, money and functionality. This thesis includes an analysis of innovation in terms of the process perspective between the indicative design and proposals submitted for the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre building (IHSC) in Kelowna, BC. The study focus relates to how the facility will be constructed and how it will be operated. Items reviewed and compared are: structure, schedule and energy consumption. For this study the indicative design was used as a starting point and basis for comparison with the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. For the purpose of this study a description of innovation was selected as, “The use of advanced technologies, methodologies, and clever ideas that result in a positive incremental change compared to the indicative design”. Along with this definition, a set of performance metrics were defined for the purpose of characterizing the proposals and then comparing them with the indicative design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".